Since four score and seven years ago, political rhetoric has been both a political tool and a metric by which we assess our leaders. Word choice can play a huge role in determining the popularity of a leader and reception to his or her policies. In the 2012 election, for example, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s repeated use of the word “illegals” to describe undocumented Mexican immigrants is considered to be one of the main reasons he fell behind his competitor with the Latino voting block. In general, the people’s responsiveness to a politician’s style of rhetoric suggests their expectations for his or her leadership. With this in mind, it is interesting to consider the nearly universal negative response to statements made by Ewa Kopacz, Poland’s newly sworn-in prime minister, at a news conference on September 19. When questioned on the extent to which Poland would provide aid and weapons to the Ukrainian government, she stated that her response would be that of “a reasonable Polish woman,” whose priorities would be the protection of “[her] house and [her] children.” She even went so far as to contrast this “feminine” approach to her vision of more aggressive, less thoughtful, “masculine” tactics. Kopacz’s statement sparked criticisms from women and men alike, who suggested that her choice of feminine language connoted weakness and passivity.
The event recalls statements made in the past few years by Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel in the wake of the Eurozone financial crisis. She argued that Europe was handling its finances irresponsibly, and in order to keep the German economy in line, she would model her policies after those of a “thrifty Swabian housewife.” Merkel’s comments, unlike Kopacz’s, were received positively; in fact, many have attributed her popularity to a “new female style” that has distinguished her from her predecessors.
So what is the source of the discrepancy between the receptions of these two female leaders and their use of female rhetoric? We can point to both lingering sexism and differing expectations for political leaders — largely shaped by fundamental differences in the political climates of Poland and Germany — for our answer.
First, critics of Kopacz’s statement argued that her comments suggested a “clumsy” understanding of current political affairs. A senior member of her Civic Platform party said, “She really doesn’t understand foreign policy issues at all. Her family comments left me baffled.” While her elaborate maternal allegory might have been a crutch to distract from an empty response, it is significant that both the content of her speech and also her specific rhetoric equally infuriated her audience. This reaction demonstrates an underlying lack of tolerance for femininity in the political domain. While uncertainty in Kopacz’s leadership may be justified, the widespread and vehement disapproval of her use of feminine rhetoric reveals gender prejudices; should a male leader misstep on addressing foreign policy issues, his incorporation of gendered language would not be the subject of criticism in the same way. That we are so ready to attack her use of feminine language here suggests that we have limited bandwidth for acceptance of female themes in a political context.
Second, Kopacz’s allegory seems to suggest a shift toward a more isolationist stance, which represents a marked difference of foreign policy from her predecessor, Donald Tusk, known for having turned the country “into an unlikely power-player in the EU, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs.” Under Tusk’s leadership, Poland pushed to align Ukraine with the West, taking a combative stance toward Russia; however, Kopacz quickly distanced herself from her predecessor by shifting the country’s foreign policy towards a more “pragmatic and conservative” stance. This transition to a softer approach may not reflect the Polish political climate. Poland is the largest member of the European Union to border the Ukraine, and many in Poland have voiced concerns about Polish security. Perhaps these concerns are the reason why Kopacz’s gentle maternal rhetoric, which strongly signaled a shift in both tone and in leadership style, was met with such alarm.In contrast, a different political climate in Germany has resulted in Angela Merkel’s use of feminine rhetoric to become an integral tool in her political arsenal. When Merkel came into power, men were seen as “responsible for all that was politically rotten in Germany,” and her sex helped shape the impression that she was an unattached outsider entering the scene. Merkel’s “humble” style was contrasted starkly with “everything that appeared distasteful [with previous leaders] — self-interest, aggressive behavior, an argumentative and confrontational nature” — all characteristics that were seen as masculine. Disenchanted with the macho politics of her predecessors, Merkel’s political moves that were perceived as more feminine in their approach were well received by the country. Notably, Merkel’s repeated effort to find “compromises” and her use of more moderate — even familial — rhetoric has been lauded; for example, she replaced Chancellor Schroder’s campaign to foster “self-employment” with one centered around the phrase “we society.” In sum, Merkel’s gender has been a largely positive part of her career, and nine years of successful leadership has served only to further reinforce more positive conceptions of femininity in the political domain. Recently the German newspaper Die Zeit published a poll showing that most Germans would prefer to see Merkel seceded by another woman.
An analysis of the two cases demonstrates that generally, expectations for political leadership — shaped by the political and social context of countries — largely inform receptiveness to political rhetoric, one facet of a leader’s presentation. Kopacz’s feminine language was met with dismay in Poland, a country seeking a strong, tough leader in the face of the current Ukrainian crisis, while Merkel’s female rhetoric has only served to increase her popularity. With the upcoming 2016 presidential election nearing, along with the growing possibility of a Hillary-Clinton-for-president campaign, it will be interesting to see how this question of incorporating femininity into the political domain plays out in the United States and to what extent Clinton will leverage feminine rhetoric as a political tool.